Ah, that makes more sense. Couldn't figure out why they'd need to insert lunar orbit equatorially, then change to a polar orbit. But like I said, I ain't no rocket scientist!

On a different but related note, does anyone know what the current state of play is as regards a manned mission to Mars? Is Mars Direct on the table? Any tentatively proposed dates?

Posty, I don't think there are any "firm" timetables for Mars, only the intent to get there one day.

We have the Shuttle finishing the ISS by 2010, the first mission of the CEV by 2014, and a return to the Moon by 2020. Beyond that, an extended human presence on the Moon, and a series of robotic missions which will, in total, teach us what we need to know in order to go to Mars, and beyond. Now, there are teams already working on Mars mission planning, to be sure, but as to dates or methodology, I have no idea, and I think it would be fallacious to make any real proposals or establish dates at this juncture.


The best we can hope for is that the multi-faceted, and very expansive Bush proposal will continue unabated in the future, and just as in about 13 years (maybe sooner), we'll be seeing men on the Moon once again, that a generation of youngsters today, kids now, may be inspired by what we do (which is part of the President's plan), and that they will be those who are, say in 2030 or so, controlling and manning the Mars missions.


We can only hope. I can recall, many decades ago, that there were plans to be on Mars by 2000. And it could've been done! Of course, politics and national will control the realities, and here we are, in 2007, hoping...having had our plans shattered and stopped by short sighted leadership and a jaded public opinion. The results of that diminshment have been far-reaching and profound in all areas of human education and endeavor.

Perhaps this Presidential mandate will pan out. We can only hope.

Give it a break. I didn't say it was "proof of the Apollo hoax". I said the article was written in the future tense, which it was. Why would they say "Instead of firing the landing rockets in short bursts, astronauts could throttle down for a nice smooth landing." for absolutely no reason??

That is, if this was NEVER the way it was done, never the way it HAD to be done, never the way it will HAVE to be done, then why even bring it up?? It seems very bizarre that they would simply make it up for absolutely no reason, doesn't it?

And again, I never said it was "proof" of a hoax - you're the one making that assumption. There is already enough proof of a hoax from other material.



I stand by what I said. Stop the pathetic BS assumptions that I claimed this was proof of a hoax, and that I didn't do any research on this issue.



Another faulty assertion - I never SAID it was the Surveyor descent engine!!



It's the original RL10 technology that the CECE is using as its base model....

"The CECE benefits from the fundamental design of the RL10"

http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templating/v...000c45a529fRCRD

At CECE's core is the RL10 engine that boosted seven Surveyor robot landers to the Moon in 1966-68, then flew dozens of other missions for more than 2.2 million seconds of operations (almost 26 days) and 718 in-space firings. The RL10 is a far more powerful and complex beast than the Apollo LM engine. It burns hydrogen and oxygen that are stored as supercold liquids in insulated tanks. These are not only high-energy propellants, but also environmentally friendly compared to the corrosive fuel of the original LM.

Now the engine is being asked to demonstrate something new: throttle from 100 percent of its 13,800-lb thrust to 10 percent on command for a human-rated spacecraft.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/16jul_cece.htm

The RL10 has since been used to develop variants for other uses - but not for throttling down!! Not until now.

It's still the core, fundamental design that's been resurrected for the variable thrust engine.

No. I meant the RL10 engine.

The RL10 Surveyor engine was not used as a base to develop a variant for the Apollo landers. But it is being used as a base to develop a variant for the Constellation landers.

Why wouldn't it have been good enough to develop a variant for Apollo when it's good enough to develop a variant 40 years later?

The RL10 has since been used to develop variants for other uses - but not for throttling down!! Not until now.


DC-X specifications


Note the type of engine it used.

Another faulty assertion - I never SAID it was the Surveyor descent engine!!


If you didn't believe that Surveyor used the RL10 as a descent engine, then why did you say this?

Each one of the Surveyor landers weighed about 660 lbs. - compared to about 33,000 lbs. for an Apollo LM. So if larger payloads are a concern, why would they base the descent engine of future landers around the RL10 Surveyor engine?


"RL10 Surveyor engine?" "Weight?"

Emphasizing the weight of the lander makes sense only in the context of discussing descent engines.

Yes and it is a "very special kind of proof". It is the kind of "proof" that is blindingly obvious to a hoax believer but is totally invisible to all those experts actually educated in the relevant subjects.

• Like photographic proof which is clearly visible to Percy and helps him sell books but is totally invisible to hundreds of thousands of other photographers around the world.
• Like technology which to a hoax believer was so obviously underdeveloped in the late '60's that it couldn't have taken man to the moon and yet has fooled every qualified aeronautical engineer on the planet for 40 years.
• Like the returned lunar samples, which to a hoax believer are obviously fake but to every single geologist that has ever actually examined them are genuine.
• Like the radiation which makes it impossible, in the mind of a hoax believer, to pass through the Van Allen belts or walk on the Moon but which every physicist and astronomer on the planet sees no problem with.
• Or like an arm, a chair and a monitor in a couple of frames of video which seem to be visible only to turbonium, sunofone and turbonium's friends but have never been noticed by the tens of thousands of other people that have seen this clip.

That's the sort of proof we are dealing with. And as befits a "special kind of proof" it has a special name and that name is "not a scrap of evidence".

Good point. It's a part of recent history that goes in NASA's Hall of Shame...

Construction of the DC-X started in 1991 at McDonnell Douglas' Huntington Beach facility. The aeroshell was custom-constructed by Scaled Composites, but the majority of the spacecraft was built from "off the shelf" parts, including the engines and flight control systems.

The DC-X first flew, for 59 seconds, on 18 August 1993. It flew two more flights 11 September and 30 September, when funding ran out as a side-effect of the winding down of the SDIO program. Apollo astronaut Pete Conrad was at the ground-based controls for some flights.

Further funding was forthcoming, however, and the test program re-started on 20 June 1994 with a 136 second flight. The next flight, 27 June 1994, suffered an inflight (minor) explosion, but the craft successfully executed an abort and autoland. Testing re-started after this damage was fixed, and three more flights were carried out on 16 May 1995, 12 June, and 7 July. On the last flight a hard landing cracked the aeroshell. By this point funding for the program had already been cut, as a side-effect of the winding down of the SDIO program, and there were no funds for the needed repairs.

NASA agreed to take on the program at this point. In contrast to the original concept of the DC-X demonstrator, NASA applied a series of major upgrades to test new technologies. In particular, the oxygen tank was replaced by a lightweight stir-welded Al-Li tank from Russia, and the fuel tank by a newer composite design. The control system was likewise improved. The upgraded vehicle was called the DC-XA, renamed the Clipper Advanced/Clipper Graham, and resumed flight in 1996.

The first flight on 18 May 1996 resulted in a minor fire when the deliberate "slow landing" resulted in overheating of the aeroshell. The damage was quickly repaired and the vehicle flew two more times on 7 and 8 June, a 26-hour turnaround. On the second of these flights the vehicle set its altitude and duration records, 3140 meters and 142 seconds of flight time. Its next flight, on 7 July, proved to be its last. During testing, one of the LOX tanks had been cracked. When a landing strut failed to extend due to a disconnected hydraulic line, the DC-XA fell over and the tank leaked. Normally the structural damage from such a fall would constitute only a setback, but the LOX from the leaking tank fed a fire which severely burned the DC-XA, completely destroying it. It must also be noted that most commercial aircraft that land without properly extended landing legs are also likely to explode; as demonstrated by the time NASA tried to do just that.

In a post-accident report, NASA's Brand Commission blamed the accident on a burnt-out field crew who had been operating under on-again/off-again funding and constant threats of outright cancellation. The crew, many of them originally from the SDIO program, were also highly critical of NASA's "chilling" effect on the program, and the masses of paperwork NASA demanded as part of the testing regimen.

NASA had taken on the project grudgingly after having been "shamed" by its very public success under the direction of the SDIO. Its continued success was cause for considerable political in-fighting within NASA due to it competing with their "home grown" Lockheed Martin X-33/VentureStar project. Pete Conrad priced a new DC-X at 50 million dollars, but NASA decided not to rebuild the craft in light of the budget constraints.

Rather, NASA focused development on the Lockheed Martin VentureStar which it felt answered some criticisms of the DC-X; specifically the requirement that many NASA engineers preferred the airplane-like landing of the VentureStar over the helicopter landing of the DC-X. NASA has never offered any further public explanation for the canceling of this important and exceptionally successful concept.

So I'll gladly concede this point. It makes my argument look even better than before.

For one thing, it's evident right in the quote above, that I didn't describe the RL10 as a descent engine.

Emphasizing the weight of the vehicle makes sense in the context of discussing existing or potential future descent engines. The RL10 was used in a much lighter vehicle than the Apollo landers, which makes its use in a much heavier craft - even as a descent engine variant - something to take into account. That's why I brought it up.

But I'd like you to address the question I just asked. Again, here it is..

The RL10 Surveyor engine was not used as a base to develop a variant for the Apollo landers. But it is being used as a base to develop a variant for the Constellation landers.

Why wouldn't it have been good enough to develop a variant for Apollo when it's good enough to develop a variant 40 years later?

The "vehicles" the RL-10 was used in were the Saturn S4 upper stage, the Centaur upper stage, the DC-X and the Delta IV upper stage. What makes you think that even the smallest of these, the Centaur, was lighter than the LM?

The RL10 was used in a much lighter vehicle than the Apollo landers, which makes its use in a much heavier craft - even as a descent engine variant - something to take into account. That's why I brought it up.


Since the only "much lighter vehicle" you have mentioned so far is Surveyor, it is obvious that you had brought it up in the context of believing that RL10 was its descent engine. The RL10 that BOOSTED Surveyor was in a Centaur, which had much more mass than a Surveyor or even a LM.

Mass of various vehicles, fully fueled:


Lunar Module: 15004kg (DPS)


DC-X: 18,900kg (RL10)

Centaur (Titan 4): 26000kg (RL10)

Saturn S-V upper stage: 15600kg (RL10)

Saturn S-IV upper stage: 50576kg (RL10)

Sources: Wikipedia and Astronautix.

These vehicles fit a definition of "much lighter vehicle" that I am not familiar with. As a matter of fact, I would appreciate it if you could find even one RL10 vehicle that is lighter than a LM.


Turbonium, I suggest that you stop digging. The hole that you are in is quite deep enough.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but there seems to be some misunderstanding floating around about certain technology, specifically the electronics parts of this discussion.

Firstly, I'm amazed that people do not understand the differences between analog and digital computers, yet write about same. Analog computers have one distinct advantage over digital puters: they can have infinitely small resolution in natural functions. Digital circuits are limited by the A2D conversion factors, and therefore are +-1 bit, always. Further, natural functions are not digital, meaning that any natural analog function can be resolved exactly only on occasion, then for only a short period. As a crude example, compare a stepper motor to a 3 phase analog drive: a stepper will advance to a specific position and there remain, eg a 16 pole stepper has 16 specific positions. A phased motor used as a positioning device will have (near) infinite resolution, so that while it may only have 22 poles (or so), the phase relationships determine rotor position; since those relationships can be varied to extremely small increments, and since the smoothing of the sines is linear, infinitely small resolution is not a big deal. If any question remains about this, I'll expand another time.

Technology of computers. Numerous factors are involved in the advance of electronics technology used in spacecraft. Most of you sit and use your desktops or laptops without any real idea what's in there. Fact is that a bit is a bit is a bit, and the high speed AMD or intel CPU you are now using is little different than a CD1800 from early years in operation. Speed is gained in such a way as to reduce the switching capacitance (to wit, make the die smaller, thus reducing capacitance in FETs); this, however, provides some problems, as in the voltages used previously are quite too high and will break down the barriers, causing the processor to cook. Thus, you now have CPU supplies in the <2V range.
Early processors such as the 1800 RCA used in the space game had supply voltages >6x current supplies: the supply for the CD1800 set was 12VDC. While the chip itself was considerably slower, it was also much more readily radiation hardened, and so more suitable to spend time out in a more irradiated environment. As the usable voltage decreases to increase speed, shielding and hardening must also advance to compensate, and this forms certain limits as to what technology can be used, unless certain unnameable other technology is available.
As to the architecture of the processors, there were CPUs available 30 years ago that lent themselves well to localized (embedded) processing, and still do, better than current technology. An example is the Motorola 6809E, which executed single instructions more quickly than any intel CPU, due to the unique methods of calculation. To wit, a single add instruction (and really, that's all a digital puter can do, isn't it?) required 3 clock cycles while the x86 series requires 71; this is due to the quadrature clock of the 09. There is also the matter of stacks and stack switching, address generation, etc etc. So while the 09 appears to be a bit crude, it's also substantially better doing what it does than a modern x86, just a little slower. It can also be radiation hardened.
It is not reasonable to use extremely high power computers to control a spacecraft: it is much more aesthetic to have distributed processing throughout, using smaller, more competent processors. This also adds redundancy and independence to the various systems. This means that the technology that was available 35 years ago is still quite adequate, in many cases, to run current rocket technology.
It is also a fact that the space program 40 years ago used technology that you cannot currently obtain. Many of the devices I used back in 72 were of type SOS with clock speeds in the microwave range (10.2GHz), and fans, you cannot get those things, period. These were field effect technology with entirely different construction than current methods. We used single chips then that did analog PCM work on 1024 channels (I won't get into what that is, because I believe it is still classified), while the commercial/industrial/military technology at the time required a box full of electronics to get 512 channels of substantially less accurate information. So for those of you that seem to think that the technology back then was stone age, no, it wasn't
We of those industries will not tell you all our tricks, nor will we tell you what technologies we have and use, nor will we tell you exactly how we do things. That's a simple matter of fact.
An example of the varying technologies in any given system might be thus: a comm device handling all communications of an army, navy, and air force uses satellite comm. The control center uses distributed processing, with hundreds of CPU sets, each having redundancy, each checking up on its predecessor. An aimer, for instance, may have four rack computers, each consisting of a CPU and support, conversion, and control boards; one is primary, and is constantly checked by the num2, constantly checked by num3, constantly checked by num4. Each of the computers can be taken off line by another, if the agreement between them is that the current control is incorrect. These might well use 20 year old technology, but you couldn't tell from the way the little fellows run. On another hand, the technology might be much more current, and classified.

Thus, any current space program will have a mix of technology from 30-40 years old and current. Most often, that older technology will be easily able to outperform current commercial technology. That stuff hasn't stood still either, yet the technology is still "old".
I think that it's best for CT to remain with the photo interpretation to prove/disprove the Apollo program. I guarantee that you are not told everything that goes on, and what you get from the net "ain't necessarily so", in the vernacular. Not just that, but the records and photos will be doctored so that you cannot reasonably arrive at a wholly accurate representation of what actually happened. This is a fact, and it is entirely reasonable to hold some stuff away from all of you.
God help us if the terrorist organizations had access to all of the technology. I guarantee I wouldn't want that!

Note that the failure of the DC-X had absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the RL10 engine, the usage of which is the point of my bringing it up. Thanks, Turboniun, for acknowledging that you were wrong.

Given that this entire thread is about whether the Apollo landings were hoaxed and given the fact that you are a hoax believer this is hardly an unreasonable assumption to make.

Furthermore as this is a discussion about the Apollo hoax theory, it seems to me that there can be only two possible explanations for your argument about the RL10 engine:

• You are contending that it is some sort of evidence or proof that the Apollo landings were faked
• or you are posting something simply to try to and get a reaction from people.

If the first case is true then your denial that this is what you are doing is dishonest and would seem to be an attempt to get a reaction from people.
An internet troll is defined thus:


Source: wikipedia

Given the denials that you have made above you current posts would seem to fit this description perfectly and it is difficult to see your actions as anything but trolling.

As I went out of my way to defend you a few days ago I find it particularly annoying to find you now acting in the very manner that I said you did not engage in.

The RL10 Surveyor engine was not used as a base to develop a variant for the Apollo landers. But it is being used as a base to develop a variant for the Constellation landers.

Why wouldn't it have been good enough to develop a variant for Apollo when it's good enough to develop a variant 40 years later?


I've got a better question for you. If you're NASA and are having a fake vehicle built, (LM) why don't you just slap an existing engine (RL10) in it? Why go through all the trouble and expense of developing a special hypergolic engine for it? Since, by your reasoning, it will never land on the moon anyway, who's gonna know the difference?

I've answered that question, at least twice.





I am not sure why this is not clear. Let me try again.

Apollo was NOT what CONSTELLATION is intended to be.
Apollo was an invent-the-technology-to-do-this-task-that's-never-been-done-before kind of thing. There were constraints. Massive constraints.
Mass of the vehicle was supremely critical, for one.

We were going to land it on the Moon, and needed to minimize the complexity and the weight. We needed simplicity and an assurance of effective and reliable ignition and throttling capability.

Hypergolics reduced the complexity and the mass of the system by a great deal, and provided reliable ignition because the fuel auto-ignites upon contact (no ignition mechanism). There were no complex pumps, no need to keep cryogenics cryogenic (that's alot more complex and massive a system as well). We had fuel tankage, helium pressurization, and a simple open the valves, and boom, you're running. A cryogenic system would've required too much time to develop, a lot more money, and would've made the LM's weight prohibitive.

...think about it for a minute. You may recall having seen pictures of the LM's outer skin buckled as the result of relatively low g loads...on Apollo 11, the pressure dump prior to EVA was mighty slow, and they actually would up opening the door under a very low internal cabin pressure (maybe 0.1 psi)...and the door actually resisted and flexed under this pressure when they opened it! We're talking alot of milling down of metal to make it light enough!

The time constraint was also pretty important, if you will recall.


This is why a cryogenic engine system was not used on the Apollo LM design. Too complex, too time consuming, too costly, and too heavy.
Is that clear enough?

We needed to do what we were doing in a relatively short amount of time. We needed to stay within budget (which was continually being reduced), we needed to be light weight, and reliable, and simple.


For the LSAM, which has alot more to do and alot more mass to deal with than an Apollo LM, we need to develop an efficient, high impulse system (cryogenics are much more efficient and powerful). The LSAM is propsed to be able to carry more payload than the entire Apollo LM weighed, and will have a 4 engine cluster powering it.

This is a very serious spacecraft, with alot more capability and a much larger mission than an Apollo LM.

I too have heard many a comment by various people that are of a similar ilk to what you describe here.
The idea of landing on the back side (or anywhere on the Moon) "by mistake" is just a little more than humorous (as well as pointing to a profound ignorance of what landing on the Moon entailed). And of course, no one would've allowed a back side landing back then.


Interestingly enough, in late 1970, and into 1971, after the point where Apollo had been curtailed by the Nixon administration (cancelling Apollos 18 through 20), there was alot of ill feelings among the Apollo guys; a feeling of having been abandoned in mid-stream, as-it-were (and some of that ill-feeling was pretty vocal and colorful). A movement of sorts to propose alternative lunar missions was conviened privately. Spearheaded by Jack Schmitt and several flight controllers, they got some computer time to run some proposed trajectories, and met in private to discuss a mission to land a LM on the back side of the Moon.

Essentially, this was a "We're not going down without a fight!" sort of thing. If a compelling mission could be concocted, studied, and put forth as something viable, the drama involved in this risky proposal might re-kindle interest and keep the program alive.

The plan never got to the attention of management, and never had a chance, but it was something being looked at after hours by a group of passionate and dedicated people who didn't want to let their program die at the hands of bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, it did die...but a few guys fought to the end. And one of them, Jack Schmitt, wound up doing what he was passionate and determined about seeing. He was determined that a geologist would be on the Moon in the Apollo program. It turned out to be him!

You might be right, Peri!
Very cool bottle...worth having.

But me thinks aerospace guys didn't have anything to do with it (which might be why it's not around any more).


The Moon on the bottle is a waning crescent. It should've been the other way around!!!

MIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD *eeeek* oh sorry bye

...I did read a couple reviews of Apollo Lager, however.
It was rated pretty good!

I'd like to clarify two issues. One began with this comment from Pericynthion...



I replied with...

I didn't say it was "proof of the Apollo hoax". I said the article was written in the future tense, which it was. Why would they say "Instead of firing the landing rockets in short bursts, astronauts could throttle down for a nice smooth landing." for absolutely no reason??

That is, if this was NEVER the way it was done, never the way it HAD to be done, never the way it will HAVE to be done, then why even bring it up??

This prompted a reply from 'Waspie_Dwarf'...



Well, imo, it is an unreasonable assumption to make. Even moreso, if it's made by one who has closely followed this - and previous - Apollo hoax threads I have posted on, such as Pericynthion. In contrast, MID did not make such as assumption, although we've been on opposite sides of this issue throughout these same threads.

If I made the same assumption, based on numerous comments made by Apollo supporters, maybe you'd begin to understand why it's unreasonable. I could easily say "Oh, good Lord, ________(member's name). I can't believe I'm reading this. You're actually arguing that _________________ is proof of Apollo's authenticity because _____________?"

There are literally thousands of comments made by Apollo supporters, made on this and other forums, that I could plunk into the blank spots. So...

"Given that this entire thread is about whether the Apollo landings were hoaxed and given the fact that" it came from an Apollo believer, would it be a reasonable assumption for me to make?




You've taken my comments and jumped to completely false conclusions.

- You've taken something you consider as "hardly an unreasonable assumption to make" - that I contend the article is "proof" of a hoax - and even gone one step further, by turning it into an indisputable "fact".

- My "denial" of that "fact"[/b means I am being [b]"dishonest". Which must mean I'm only trying "to get a reaction from people". Therefore, my "actions" must be "trolling".


There is nothing wrong with pointing out problems with the "official" Apollo story, as with this article. Or at least, there should be nothing wrong with it.

So you ARE claiming that this is evidence of an Apollo hoax. Good grief turbonium what is your point?

Did we land on the moon? I'll tell you what I think (CAUTION....CONTAINS CONSIRECIES!!). I have heard of 500 mile thick radiation belt surounding the Earth. You would need a 6-foot thick lair of lead around the space ship!! Lets change subjects for a minuet, to UFOs. As we know and have seen they metalic and thick. Hmm, this leads one to think what is made at area 51....UFOs? Made of lead? To make it through the radiation layer? To keep its passengers safe from the radiation? I think the government has sent many unidentified (TO US) flying objects to the moon to build mines or cities. How do the UFOs work? the government have been taking notes during the times of Tesla and they see another genius in Hutchison, but he will not cooperate, so they stole his technology.

Are you convinced?

Are you mad at me?

By what, you've presented no evidence for anything at all?


No, just confused as to what your point is?

And let's not change the subject, off topic posting is not a good idea and there is a whole forum for UFO and ET stuff.

No. Problems are not completely identical in meaning to evidence / proof.

There is a very important distinction in meaning between the two.

So if you are not claiming that all you recent nonsense is actually evidence of anything at all and again taking in to account that this is a thread about the moon hoax I ask again what is your point?

I respect that you think I posted ET/Ufo stuff, but I thought I was explaining my theory on how the moon landing was staged but the government uses UFOs under the cover of aliens to travel to the moon and do who knows what. I guese I am saying we landded on the moon but with a different space craft.
Please don't ban me

Why would I ban you?

What I would say is that you are trying to explain something which all the evidence shows is false (the Moon Hoax thread) with a huge assumption (UFO are covered in 6 foot of lead) about something which there is virtually no evidence for (that unidentified flying objects are alien spacecraft) and incorporating another claim for which there is no real evidence (that the US government posses alien technology).

All this is rather illogical. Apart from the Van Allen radiation belts which ARE passable you offer no reasons and no evidence to back up anything you say. Incidentally the "6 foot of lead" has been throughly debunked many times on this forum alone.

If NASA did land men on the moon then the photographs (which the moon hoax myth people repeatedly and incorrectly claim are evidence of the fake ) would actually be genuine and there is no evidence of any hoax at all.

Why do you believe it is possible for men to have walked on the Moon but not in the way that it is claimed? Do you have any evidence at all to support any part of your claim ("I have heard that" does not constitute evidence)?

Okay, I'll go over it again, in a different way...

First of all - this is a thread about the Moon hoax. But this point could just as well apply to 9/11, or JFK, or any other conspiracy.


With the Apollo hoax (as with 9/11, etc.), the main point of contention is evidence. What proof is there for a hoax? Or, what proves Apollo was genuine?

What is speculation, or personal belief? What is solid evidence, or corroborative evidence?

I'll say to MID that there is no evidence that the dust has been disturbed by the LM descent engine. He'll reply that there is. We both post photos to support our opposing claims - maybe we'll even use the same photo to support our differing claims! But neither side can consider such images as proof of a hoax or proof of authenticity.

And, even if this specific issue were mutually resolved beyond doubt either way, it still wouldn't establish the final word on Apollo as a hoax or genuine.


You may consider what I said to be "nonsense", in your opinion. But I'm equally entitled to raise what I believe to be valid questions, not "nonsense".

There are many claims that support Apollo which are unsubstantiated, just as there are in regards to the opposite viewpoint.


The main point is that both sides are entitled to their beliefs and opinions, and both sides are entitled to speak and write about those beliefs and opinions.

Not just the views which one agrees with.

Here is some evidence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Ok, turbonium, since this seems to be directed mostly at me, please allow me to clarify my offending statement. Perhaps "proof" was a poor choice of words. "Evidence" would have been a better choice. Other than that, I continue to stand by my statements.

If you read back through this thread, you'll see that my initial response to you was a polite, informative post pointing out (1) that the author linked to a NASA source which clearly stated that the LM DPS could throttle, and (2) that throttleable rocket engines existed prior to the LM DPS engine. You discounted this information, along with data from other posters, and continued to maintain in several posts that the "Universe Today" author's use of the future tense was somehow evidence supporting an Apollo hoax. That's what led to my next post expressing surprise and dismay at what seems to me to be your continuing attempt to manufacture an issue out of nothing.

I'd like very much to get back to a civil debate of the evidence here, but I'm afraid that, like Waspie, I'm a bit confused by your recent posts. Can you please clarify your position? Do you believe that the Apollo LM descent engine did not work as documented? If so, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

Regards,

Pericynthion

On Apollo 13, does any one believe the fall back to Earth thing.

They are going 24,000 mph to the moon with little maneuvering jets,
go around the moon and make all adjustments to come back safe.

I mean back when everyone was ignorant of even reading HG WELLS
from here to the moon it was a hit.

Now when every one is ignorant of TV ( developed as a propaganda tool by
the NAZIS) we get Moon stories on TV.

Its story telling, plain ans simple.
Invented by Nazis and continued by Nazis.

You are joking I hope right? When moving at such speeds, you dont need big huge jets to alter your trajectory by a significant amount over time. Hence, if a large asteroid came flying towards us, we'd just need to alter it's course slightly in order for it to not hit us (depending on how far away it was when we intercepted it's course). The people on that Apollo Mission almost DIED, it wasn't just something simple such as "Oh we blast these jets a few times and we're back". They almost died of Carbon Dioxide poisoning, freezing to death, among other things.

If you're joking then just ignore this post

No one has every tried to prevent you posting your views. What I am objecting to is your recent childish tactic of when being asked a question such as, "do you really claim this to be proof" saying that you never said that. Then later claiming that the same post is evidence. Your petty semantics over exactly what you claimed are the problem. It either is (in your opinion) evidence or it isn't. If it is, fine, but cut out the denial when someone challenges you. If it isn't then it has no place being in the discussion in the first place.

Now clearly you are making your posts as evidence of the Apollo myth and your denial that you were offering it as some sort of proof was disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Edited to add;
I didn't see Pericynthion's post when I replied. I would agree with him that it is time to return to the topic. I will also say that my original accusation was a bit over the top (although I stand by my accusation of disingenuous posting).

It is possible that I am getting more annoyed with turbonium than I would with other people simply because in the past his posts have been of a far higher quality and better thought out than those of most other hoax believers. Sadly that has not been the case lately and he has resorted to the run of the mill HB nonsense.

H.G. Wells was a great writer of fiction. What he was not was an expert on orbital mechanics.

I suggest that for this sort of discussion reading scientific literature would be more of more benefit than reading fiction, (unless, for your next trick you wish to debate English history and base it on Walt Disney's version of Robin Hood).

You mean Walt Disney's "Robin Hood" wasn't accurate? Rats! What a letdown. Ok, I'll crawl back in my hole!

Ummm is this topic still here? My god give it a rest already

The "fall back to Earth thing..."?


In a manner of speaking, all spacecraft on orbit, or in cis-lunar space, are indeed falling. However, given the postulation that TV was developed as a propaganda tool by the Nazi's, I am thinking that you wouldn't exactly understand why that would be the case (television was invented, somewhat simultaneously, by two Americans).

They...the Apollo astronauts, began their journey to the Moon at ~ 25,000 MPH as a result of a 250,000 pound thrust engine boosting them to that velocity (required velocity to escape the gravitational influence of the Earth...rather basic material).

This velocity gradually decreased, as a result of the Earth's "pull", and at a certaion point, began to increase, as a result of the Moon's pull. By the time they arrived at the Moon, they were traveling a fraction of the speed at which they left.

What Apollo 13 did was somewhat standard. They adjusted their trajectory, as every Apollo mission did en-route, using their little maneuvering jets.
When they passed behind the Moon, they would've been slung around, without power, on an Earth return trajectory (it was designed that way). However, they utilized their Lunar Module's Descent engine to adjust their trajectory so that they would re-enter the atmopshere of the Earth at a more favorable location for adequate recovery.


This was something that was done all the time...although certainly not with the LM DPS engine.

Apollo 13 came back to Earth pretty much the same way that all the Apollo missions did, albeit by innovative and different means.
There's no "buying it" involved. It happened.

No, Turb.
The main point of contention is that HB's claim a hoax.

There is required--evidence proof of that. There is no proof required that Apollo was genuine (despite the fact that it exists in volumes).

The HB must prove his accusations to be true. We (Apollo types) are the accused. You are the accuser. You bear the burden of proof.
This is a fundamnetal thing that HBs need to be continually reminded of.




Finally, you address me.
I have noted a decided tendency to avoid that recently.

You are venturing into the obscure here. Any one with knowledge of the subjecty matter can clearly see the evidence that the dust has indeed been disturbed by the LM DPS. It is documented in transcripts and in exceedingly clear photographs which have been posted and explained. You do not see it...because you do not want to see it, and, you don't understand the nature of the DPS exhaust, the nature of the lunar surface dust, nor will you, or have you done the experiments I've described so that you can see the difference between a stream of gas blowing on cohesive dust and the imprint of an object of concentrated mass on the same dust.

I've offered you a simple experiment so that you can see the difference in the two impulses.


I do not simply reply that there is evidence of DPS disruption of the lunar soil. I show you obvious evidence of it. You, on the other hand, merely state you cannot see it. It's clear. It's right there in obvious fashion. But again, the obvious nature of what we're looking at is proof. You say you don't see it. Scientists do see it, and understand it. If you want to disagree, fine. But you're going to have to show it's not there. That will be a task. And that task is your burden.


It is utterly untrue that neither side can say that these images are proof of authenticity or proof of a hoax. What can be shown, and has, is that the images clearly show the described effects. What cannot be shown, and hasn't been shown, is that the images prove a hoax.




You have raised valid questions.
They have been completely answered.


Your recent posts have ignored much of what's been posted, and you have advanced some nonsense and ignored what's been shown to you. You may certainly raise questions...but after a fashion, ignoring the obvious doesn't say much.



There are no claims that substantiate Apollo. Apollo is substantiated. We are not making claims. We are merely adressing claims made by the "other side" that reflect a lack of understanding about things that were involved, and , in certain cases, things that are completely mis-interpreted. The documentation and scientific scrutiny is overwhelming. There are, however, many opposing viewpoints which are not substantiated in the least. Your side makes the claims. We explain what you do not understand.

But you're right...both sides are indeed entitled to their opinions and beliefs. The purpose of this thread is not to stifle them. It is to teach.
You cannot disprove Apollo. No one yet has come close. This is because it is not a possibility. There is a difference between belief and knowledge.

What is clearly seen is a lack of knowledge about the subject matter (which is not entirely unexpected in this day and age). We are not seeking to defend ourselves (there is no need). We are seeking to impart knowledge about something that happened a generation and a half ago to those who don't undersatand it...how it happened, and why it happened.

You may express you opinons of course. We on the other hand, are not expressing ours. We are expressing knowledge about the events, the way they were done, and how they were done.


There is a decided difference.

If you wish to assume to position of antagonist, and attack our knowledge of the subject, you are in the position of weakness, because you have to prove your positions. We don't have to prove ours (they are substantiated and concurred with worldwide by really smart people who make me look like a mental pygmie!).


You are arguing against the most substantiated scientific accomplishmnent in human history, Turb. That is a daunting challenge. Einstein couldn't do it (nor would he try).

You have voluminously argued about 15 seconds of obscure video from Apollo 12, citing evidence of arms and hands and chairs and curtains and stagehands. You ignore the countless hours of other video in pursuit of this illusion....an illusion that has been clearly and in detail been explained (anyone who knows where the camera was, what it was doing at the time, how it was being moved, and what the nature of the scene actually was can clearly see what was in those images...). Now, you have asked repeatedly about why we didn't develop and use a cryogenic engine on the Apollo DPS, thinking that since we are now developing a system of cryogenic power for thwe LSAM, that this must mean we should've used one on the LM.

The answers, simple engineeering principals involving time, weight, complexity, and cost (this is part of engineeering ($$$)) have been clearly explained, but you seem to wish to ignore them in favor of arguing that you're allowed to express you opinion.

Again, I say, you are allowed to do that, but when you stray from the obvious and clear explanations, and want to argue for the sake of argument, you are clogging things up with what appears to be trolling.

The answers have been voluminous, repeated, and clear from an engineeering standpoint, and you've ignored them, preferring to argue with Pericynthion and Waspie, who see a pattern of obstinance in your posts, while ignoring me completely.

Uncharacteristic (for you)comments designed to spark a controversy and nothing more.


What's this crap?








It's time to lighten up and get with the program here.
I've always respected you as a poster who asked questions, and posed intelligent arguments.


That's what we're about.

However, you've ignored things completely here, and are beginning to sound rather over-the edge on the HB side of things.

What is this about?
Is it about expressing your opinions?

Ok, then, fine. Express away.

However, if you're no longer inclined to learn about these things from people who know something about it, then expect your expressions to be ignored. We take opinions expressed as an opportunity to educate. We'll listen to just about anything, and explain it (which is far more lenient than the response you'll get from other websites, where they'll chew you up and spit you out). But if you're going to ignore erudite, knowledgable explainations concerning matters that have not been at the forefront of the American educational system for decades...you're going to find that you're talking to the wind.

The book was called First Men in the Moon, a huge piece of really intersting work written in 1901, and which I read with awe when I was a kid.
I still have a copy of that. A magnificent piece of inventiveness and imagination.


I wish we could have had Cavorite in the 1960s. We could've save billions of dollars going to the Moon (We'd have also figured out how to use it effectively so as not to roll uncontrolled on the lunar surface upon contact....I never understood how Bedford and Cavor were able to survive that dead stick landing on the lunar surface....but, they did!!!!


I am, however, curious as to what this convoluted statement has to do with anything....?


If everyone was ignorant of reading H.G. Wells, how could it have been a hit???

Not accurate, the first television technology was demonstrated by John Logie Baird (who was Scottish) in the 1920s.

Perhaps because I never did say that!! Please cite the post in which I did this, or retract the accusation. The only childish tactic is putting words in my mouth and calling me dishonest for not going along with it.



Please cite the post in which I did this, or retract the accusation.



"Petty" is the perfect description for your unfounded accusations.



No, it's the false assumptions made in the first place - "when someone challenges" me - that need to be cut out. I have every right to deny false accusations, and that's exactly what those were.



Of course it does. Didn't you read anything I said about evidence, proof, and opinion? The vast majority of the posts in this thread, or this category, or the entire forum, do not include evidence. Most of the posts are one's personal opinion. Which, as I said, is the right of each person to have, and to post.

As long as it abides by forum rules, one is entitled to post their viewpoints. It does not have to include evidence, although it may. Many pro-Apollo posts in this thread are personal opinions, not evidence. Yet they have no place in this discussion? Not according to your logic.

All I posted was an article that I felt raised valid questions about the official Apollo record. Somehow, you find that to be a problem. Why? Apparently, because I have to consider it proof of a Moon hoax in order to bring it up. Otherwise, it "has no place being" posted!

So, one cannot simply raise perfectly valid questions. One must also contend that such questions are absolute proof or evidence. That's utterly ridiculous. It's a childish, petty game, where one makes up nonsensical rules that only apply to one side of the debate - the side the "rulemaker" disagrees with, naturally.

I've wasted far too much time on this "non"-issue, and it ends for me right here. I'll resume with the actual topics, as of now.

Since I think this is at least partly directed at me, I feel a need to respond here. From the post in which you first quoted the "Universe Today" article:




You quote an article about the ongoing development of an LSAM engine and note the use of future tense when discussing the use of a throttleable engine for lunar landing. You then state (incorrectly) that it's a fact that there is currently no available variable-thrust rocket engine and conclude that, because of this, it must also be a fact that a variable-thrust engine did not exist in 1969.

If the LM DPS engine didn't exist in 1969, the Apollo lunar landings could not have taken place as documented. Therefore, the existing historical records must have been hoaxed; there's no other reasonable conclusion. You then claim that "the evidence provided by that article alone <my emphasis> is clear enough for the person who knows what they're looking at, and most scientifically educated people, to understand and clearly interpret."

Note that you're not presenting these ideas as opinions; you're stating that they are facts. How can your post be interpreted as anything other than a claim that the "Universe Today" article is proof of an Apollo hoax?

That's all I'm going to say on this topic. When you're ready, how about we take Waspie's advice and get back to discussing the evidence? I'd really like to know why you think the LM DPS engine didn't exist in 1969.

If no proof is required to show that Apollo was genuine, then there would hardly be anyone disputing it. But that's clearly not the case. And if you believe that something is proven simply on the basis that volumes of "documentation" exist, than the Warren Report must have proven Oswald killed JFK, and that the Magic Bullet Theory is a fact. But we both know that's bull.



I agree. But that goes both ways.



No, I do not see it because I do not see it.




Neither the nature of the DPS exhaust, nor the nature of the lunar dust can be verified here on Earth, as you certainly know.




I actually have done so, with my air compressor. And it did leave a distinct impression in the dust, unlike the DPS. So that only helped my argument.



Again, I disagree. And, I'll give you one such example in a future post.



I agree. The purpose is to teach, and to learn, as much as we can. But there is much more that we do not yet know.



Maybe I can't, personally, but it most certainly can be disproven.



I totally disagree.



In your opinion. I believe it is not only possible, but increasingly probable.



That's so true.



I strongly disagree. I think it's very obvious to see that pro-Apollo groups have spent an enormous amount of time and money, specifically defending Apollo against hoax claims. Type "Apollo hoax" or "moon hoax" into a search engine, and see what comes up. The vast majority are pro Apollo websites. NASA even spent $15,000 to hire an author for a book defending Apollo hoax claims, before it cancelled it because of the negative PR appearance it gave NASA.

And the astronauts themselves - purportedly the only first-hand witnesses to men being on the Moon - only answer hoax claims with obscenities and maniacal rage. But that's another issue.



That is your opinion of the video clip. I respect your opinions on this matter, but I do not find them the least bit convincing. My opinion - which is my original opinion - has remained exactly the same throughout. The objects, one in 3-dimensional depth, and their perfectly matching colors, are not gold mylar to me - simply because that's where it's "supposed" to be. A moving camera and low resolution video do not make gold mylar look like perfectly color-indexed people and 3-dimensional chairs. Sorry, but they don't. Your opinion is - and likely will always remain - opposed to mine on this issue.



I have read your explanation for why this wasn't done, and it's reposted below....

"In the Apollo LM, we were under time and budgetary constraints. We also sought simplicity in operation because of the lack of redundancy in a single engine system that had to work flawlessly. The cost of developing a cryogenic LM engine system would've been massive (and heavier...we needed to stay as light as possible). We had the ability to fabricate a hypergolic system with relative simplicity. It cost alot less, could be done faster, and was adequate to serve the purpose."

Let's review each one...

"In the Apollo LM, we were under time and budgetary constraints."

The RL10 engine was already developed and proven well before the Apollo project began (the LM descent engine design was chosen in 1963, while the RL10 engine was developed in the late 1950's).. So the time and cost to develop an RL10 variant should have been manageable, when compared to all the unknowns in trying to develop a completely new, untested, and unproven engine, completely from scratch. With the RL10, they already had a base to work with. When time and money are so critical, it seems rather stupid to completely ignore what you already have available to build from, and try to come up with something completely new, instead. At the very least, it would seem sensible that they should have worked on both projects at the same time. If the budget only allowed for one, then the project with a proven base engine would make much more sense than the project with a blank sheet of paper. But there were parallel projects for the LM descent engine, so the budget would have allowed for developing both the RL10 variant and the new engine.

"We also sought simplicity in operation because of the lack of redundancy in a single engine system that had to work flawlessly."

The lack of redundancy in a single engine system should have made developing the LM engine an even worse choice than developing a multiple engine system based on the RL10.

"The cost of developing a cryogenic LM engine system would've been massive (and heavier...we needed to stay as light as possible)."

The cost comparison has been discussed. As for the engine weight - they need to stay as light as possible for Constellation, as well.


Again, I don't claim it's some sort of "smoking gun" evidence that proves it was a hoax. I'm pointing this out because I don't see it as a logical progression, under the premise that Apollo was genuine, to take a 1950's engine as a base, and "jump" past the Apollo descent engine, for future descent engine development. I appreciate your explanation, MID, but I don't find it really answers the discrepancies - ie: the complete, immediate ditching of such a supposedly perfect engine, developed after the engine now being used as a base for missions in 2020 and beyond.

However, under the premise that Apollo was a hoax, the "leapfrog" progression makes perfect sense to me. That is, if the LM's were incapable of landing men safely on the lunar surface, then the descent engine design was a "white elephant" that nobody could use for future development and refinement. From that point, it had to be made to look unusable for any future projects. It went from being the perfect descent engine (for Apollo) to instant obsolescence, the minute after the Apollo project ended.

I really think that the closer we get to 2020 (when man will "return" to the Moon), the more we will see just how incredibly difficult it will truly be to put men on the Moon and safely return to Earth. That's why I find it very interesting to read the updates that NASA releases about the project, and the numerous radiation studies that - for some strange reason - completely ignore all the Apollo data. Data so 'valuable' that it's never included, despite the very limited previous data available, for those studies.

The "return" to the Moon was announced in 2002, and will take at least 18 years to accomplish. Apollo took a mere 7 years from announcement to (supposedly) accomplish by 1969. The reasons you and others have given for taking almost 3 times longer to do by 2020, than the time it took to do 50 years earlier, just don't cut it, imo. Budget, for example. Having a project stretch out for 18 years costs a hell of a lot more than it ever would in taking just 7 years to finish.

Sibrel: - "Hi Mr Armstrong, my names Bart Sibrel. I am making a living telling the world that you are a liar, and a trickster. You're entire life is a lie! You fooled the world, you didn't achieve ANYTHING! All those times that you risked your life for the betterment of manking, WERE FAKED! SWEAR ON THIS BIBLE MR ARMSTRONG THAT YOU LANDED ON THE MOON! It doesn't matter that I can't get my head around scientific principles that even a 6 year old can understand, YOU STILL FAKED IT ALL. PS I'm going to harass Mr Aldrin now continously until he agrees to an interview, and when he doesn't I will lie to him and get him there under false pretenses!"

Armstrong: - "Come in Mr Sibrel, have a cup of tea!"

I don't think so somehow, do you turbonium? The best video I have ever seen was Buzz punching that pompous git in the face.

Have you read "Moondust" by Andrew Smith? It's a series of interviews with the